Allowed

Gajanan S/O. Ramesh Ambhore v. the State Ofmah. Thr. Pso, Ps Raipur, Tah. and Dist. Buldhana and Another

Bombay HC30 Apr 2024BA/224/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a POCSO and rape case involving the victim's maternal uncle. The victim's Section 164 statement denied the FIR, attributing it to a quarrel with her mother, and no injuries were found on medical examination. With investigation complete and charge-sheet filed, the court allowed bail on a PR bond of Rs.25,000.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on PR bond of Rs.25,000 with one solvent surety; conditions against inducement/threat imposed.

Gajanan S/O. Ramesh Ambhore Vs the State Ofmah… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:5260

¶3

919.ba.224.24.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.224 OF 2024

¶6

(Gajanan s/o Ramesh Ambhore Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr.)

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the applicant. Ms S. Haider, APP for the State. Ms S. Saware, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2.

¶9

CORAM:- URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED :- APRIL 30, 2024.

¶10

By preferring this application, the applicant is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant came to be arrested on 16/10/2023 in connection with Crime No.226/2023 registered with Police Station Raipur, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5(n), 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶11

The accusation against the present applicant is on the basis of report lodged by the victim aged about 16 years and 6 months who alleged that on 27^th April, 2023 she was alone in the house, at that time present applicant who is her maternal uncle closed the door of the house and subjected her for sexual assault. On the basis of said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant. During investigation, the Investigating

¶12

¶13

919.ba.224.24.odt

¶14

Officer has referred the victim for medical examination. During medical examination, no injuries are found on her person. During investigation, she and her mother further referred to the Magistrate for recording their statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. wherein they both have stated that out of the anger as there was a quarrel between the applicant and mother of the victim, this FIR is lodged.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the recitals of the FIR and the subsequent statement made by the victim and mother of the victim and also medical certificate which shows there is no injury sufficiently shows the false implication of the present applicant in the alleged offence. Now investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed, further incarceration of the present applicant is not required and prays for releasing the applicant on bail.

¶16

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for respondent No.2 strongly opposed the application on the ground that 16 years girl is subjected for sexual assault by the maternal uncle. Considering the prima facie case application deserves to be rejected.

¶17

I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the investigation papers from which it reveals that the FIR is lodged on the basis of report lodged by the victim aged about 16 years and 6 months.

¶18

¶19

919.ba.224.24.odt

¶20

Subsequent to the lodging of the FIR, her statement is recorded before the Magistrate wherein she denied the allegation and stated that out of the anger said FIR is lodged by her. Now, investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. The medical certificate also does not support the allegation made by the victim. Though learned Counsel for the victim submitted that the victim has no objection to release the applicant on bail, however her contention at this stage, cannot be taken into consideration. Considering the fact that the allegation made by the victim is not substantiated by the medical report and by the statement of her mother also and considering the investigation is completed, further incarceration of the present applicant is not required. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :

¶21

(i) The application is allowed.

¶22

(ii) The applicant – Gajanan s/o Ramesh Ambhore in connection with Crime No.226/2023 registered with Police Station Raipur, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5(n), 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, be released on bail on his executing a P.R.Bond in the sum of

¶23

¶24

919.ba.224.24.odt

¶25

Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement and threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the present case.

¶27

The application stands disposed of.

¶28

The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per rules.

¶29

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶30

*Divya

Gajanan S/O. Ramesh Ambhore v. the State Ofmah. Thr. Pso, Ps Raipur, Tah. and Dist. Buldhana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan S/O. Ramesh Ambhore v. the State Ofmah. Thr. Pso, Ps Raipur, Tah. and Dist. Buldhana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivkumar @ Shivam Devnarayan Dubey Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Police Officer Akot City Tq. and Dist. Akola and Another.

Kayyum Shah S/O. Shahan Shah and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Karanja (Ghadge), Tq. Karanja (Ghadge), Dist. Wardha.

Aaditya Raju Dayal Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Mahagaon Dist. Yavatmal and Another

Rohit @ Akash Mahendra Shende Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Ajni, Nagpur.

Vaibhav S/O Ganesh Kewate Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Aamgaon Dist.Gondia and Another

Bhupesh @ Banti S/O Gulabsingh Parmar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Khaparkheda, Dist. Nagpur